WhatIfGaming writes: "Crackdown 3 is easily one of the worst games to come out recently by Xbox Game Studios"
“Crackdown 3 is easily one of the worst games to come out recently by Xbox Game Studios" Xbox is on a role! Crackdown 3 58 Metacritic average 3.2 average user score. Sea of Thieves 67 Metacritic avaerage 4.4 average user score State of Decay 2 67 Metacritic average 5 average user score
In all fairness, it was mainly developed by Sumo
Well Microsoft did choose the developers of the game. So they are part of the blame as well.
well all MS says = empty promises..i dun hate MS but while they cant even fix even win os and now trying to with the power of jesus and stuffs and meow games ..their games just sux azz and thats it..they rly should focus on windows instead of consoles...i traded my old comp with friend + monies ..now i just have old i5-3570K @3.8GHZ 8GB DDR 1600mhz and asus strix gtx1070 8gb and such as FH4 offers riteaway ultra settings...not that i would diss that game ..but gameplay is literally for teenies :P aka arcade ..nice graphics and whatever..also tried SoD2 via gamepass..i think resident evil 1 on ps1 looks and plays better than those 2 combined^^ just my opinion no need to get mad abt it =)
Jesus Christ..... anything to spin
So place all the blame on Sumo, amirite? Microsoft is to mainly blame for this mess. Bragging about a stupid cloud instead of delivering an actual good game.
“Crackdown 3 is easily one of the worst games to come out recently by Xbox Game Studios" "In all fairness, it was mainly developed by Sumo " My comment was referring to the fact that Sumo isn't Xbox Game Studios so the quote is inaccurate
Elementx. It was Microsoft's decision to put the game out regarless of who made it. They could have just cancelled the game like they did Scalebound.
"In all fairness, it was mainly developed by Sumo" that's not really an excuse. MS funded the game, and could have pulled the plug or switched developers at any point.
Notice that the article claims this came out of xbox game studios. Notice it was published by XGS. That’s a valid comparison.
So was LBP3 what’s your point?
Element They developed LBP3 which turned out good what's your point?
Here's an unbiased Crackdown 3 review: 4/10 Its an updated Crackdown 1, a fun throwback. I had fun for maybe 3-4 hours with it. If you never played crackdown before, I bet this game is a lot more fun since everything is new. Multi-player is garbage I think. I played it, meh. Ended up playing Apex instead. I'm incredibly glad I didn't spend $60 on this, I got it with gamepass.
My entire point was the inaccuracy of the quote stating it came out of Xbox Game Studios. I don't care if it's a flop and I don't care who developed it. Even if MS published it, it wasn't developed in house by XGS. Obviously people here don't care about facts. Yes it's a flop, I don't care either way, MS isn't getting any money from me for it.
The user scores are worthless. Anybody can get on there and write a review whether they have actually played a game or not. It just ends up being a battleground for fanboys. That's why you see so many 10s and 0s for most games and why the average user score is usually quite a lot lower than the metacritic average.
It seems to balance out in the end for most games. You actually have to log in to add a vote.
@mkis Yeah, for most games. Not exclusives.
Tbh this game is not bad at all. It's not a 10/10 game but it will depend on what games you like ive not played the 1st two but have game pass so thought ide see what it's like and what I've played (sp) so far I've enjoyed it. It's one of them games you can pickup turn off and play. I would not it was the best game we have seen this gen but its not as bad as the reviews show to. Its kind of an old school pickup and shoot things game.
Same thing can be said for professional reviews. It doesn't take much to be a game reviewer and get your review up on metacritic.
Then explain the discrepancy between the user score of God of War, 9.1 (in theory, should have far more fanboys trolling the user scores because it's an exclusive) and RDR2, 7.9 (a game that literally everyone was hyped about, and shouldn't have "fanboys" trolling metacritic because it isn't on their console). I think user scores on metacritic can generally be disregarded about as much as the critic scores, but when there's a substantial gap between the critic and user score, maybe there's a reason for that?
somebody made sense on N4G and talked against Fanboys, thats it...down vote the blasphemer from the safety of your moms basement...
@rainslacker Well, I don't put a lot of stock in professional reviews either, since they certainly can still be affected by fanboyism and other biases. But at least they have a reputation to uphold and aren't completely anonymous. I trust them more on average, but still don't blindly trust their collective opinions. I put more stock in individual reviewers who seem to have similar tastes to me and who have shown they can be fair and impartial in their reviews. @ bluefox755 You're joking right? That's exactly what I would have expected to happen. Just because a game is a multiplat doesn't mean that console fanboys won't attack it. Most big multiplats get an unusual amount of hate these days and in my experience it's usually the known hardcore fanboys doing it. There are numerous reasons why they are motivated to do this. Big budget multiplats with outstanding visuals and highly positive critical reception are the biggest targets because these games compete visually and critically with their precious exclusives. These people have a deep psychological need to put their favorite platform's exclusives on a pedestal above other games. So when a game comes out that threatens that perception because it has amazing visuals or received super positive reviews or is competing for GOTY these fanboys go out of their way to try to downplay it and knock it down a few notches. On metacritic I saw one person who had obviously created over a half dozen accounts and the only games he reviewed with each of those accounts were RDR2 and God of War. Same writing style, same shallow talking points in each review... it was blatantly obvious they were all the same person. With all of them he gave God of War nothing but 10s and RDR2 nothing but 0s. Yes, some people really are that pathetic. And in the particular case of RDR2 I would be willing to bet that some of the hate is coming from PC gamers. I'm a PC gamer and I am really annoyed that Rockstar is choosing to forgo the PC (until later most likely when they can get many of us to double dip), but the game is fantastic in my book and I would never give it an unfair low score. I'm not responsible for what other PC gamers do though and I have no doubt some PC gamers would act in that way. I've seen it many times. In fact, here is just one example where he comes out and says it: "Awful game, tremendously awful game !!! It does not go to the PC, it shows a black screen and says "I will not go to the PC" I will get current on the console, think PC is the best platform, but I wanted to spit on your consoles. If it is not on the PC then the game sucks. Come out, then put a fair assessment and review. In the meantime, this is justice. As you are to us, so are we." That person gave it a 0 just for not being on PC. Most people try to hide their secret fanboy motivations for overrated or underrating games, but they are plain to see. Well-written individual user reviews can sometimes provide useful information, but the average user score as a whole is completely meaningless.
Stating facts and still getting downvoted lol
You forget Forza Horizon 4. Oh wait...
Oh wait. Great performance in one game vs form over the season. It's saddening that when Microsofts library of work gets criticized 'Forza Forza Forza' gets plugged. Yeah. We know Forza is Microsoft's best entity this gen. . . . . . and then . . . . Wait I guess is the operative word
Having one great rated ip every year would be at least better if it wasnt a niche genre. Rarely do people bring up MLB the show for the same reason.
While Nintendo and Sony have had multiple huge games year after year Microsoft has had one successful franchise the whole generation. That's the difference.
Sea of Thieves is like an 8-9 now.
Xbox still better to me in my opinion my opinion only my thoughts
In my opinion most people are lizards, im not basing it on any facts, but its my opinion and i believe it despite all evidence to the contrary.
Eh good try but not quite. Xbox is factually better in many ways. People are factually not lizards
No gutter It's perfectly fit game for gamepass Crackdown 3 58 Metacritic average 3.2 average user score. Sea of Thieves 67 Metacritic avaerage 4.4 average user score State of Decay 2 67 Metacritic average 5 average user score So users hate the games more than critics GOTY Contenders
This game is not a 3. Come on. This is going for the bottom of the barrel for clicks.
IGN just give the Multiplayer a 4/10.
I haven't played the multiplayer so I can't comment on that.
"I haven't played the multiplayer so I can't comment on that." Are you the guy who reviewed Resident Evil 2 Remake for IGN?
Crackdown 3 multi-player 4 years ago would have been more fun... In a world with Fortnite, PUBG, and Apex, it can't compete. I played 1 round of MP with Crackdown 3 and was not interested in another round.
With all the talk about the cloud, the game deserves a 0.
No, the game deserves whatever score it deserves as a game. Keep the politics and fanboyism out of game reviews.
It's hard to separate the game from the promises and cloud talk that they blew up everyone's rear ends. You can't blame fanboys or reviewers for that. MS brought this on themselves. Crackdown stood for more than just being a single game. More than any other in the library to be fair. . When Peter Molyneux hyped his projects and they didn't meet the hype he got the backlash. Same with the no man's sky developer and the watchdog developer. . This was more important as the whole power of the cloud was billed as a game changer and crackdown was the vessel. If the game was good then it'll be easier to forget the bs. . .clearly its not
I bet you were the kid who would take his ball home when he lost or had an argument with the other boys.
@Starchild Explain to me how having features promised that were not delivered and that the biggest talking point about your game was all hot air which offers no substantive value NOT something that should be taken into account when evaluating a game? They went HARD at No Man's Sky for not having many of the features they promised at launch, and rightfully so. Then the features were added and, what do you know, No Man's Sky turned into a pretty entertaining game. I don't see why it's unfair to deck points from Crackdown 3 for broken promises.
Well, there should be some sort of reprecussion for delibrate over hyping. Do you know how many people may have kept their xbox’s over hopes of cloud power, or paid with their hard earned money to get one specifically because of the promises? Neither do I, but maybe there should be some sort of deterant so MS stops doing that to people.
What was promised from the cloud, and what I played on Crackdown 3, are WORLDS apart. Truly disappointed. For the record, I literally chose Xbox 1 at launch simply because I was such a hardcore Crackdown fanboy. I NEEDED the system that would have it. Now that I've played it 3-4 hours, I don't know if I'll pick it up again.
I think a score of 0 should be reserved for games that simply don't run (meaning no game deserves a 0). To suggest there are NO acceptable qualities? That's a bit much. If you're doing a neuropsychological assessment, scoring the absolute worst on an assessment would indicate you are brain dead and a 0 on any academic test would suggest you either didn't take it or you simply got everything wrong. I've not played Crackdown 3, but I'm quite confident it doesn't meet criteria for a 0. I would even say that any score from 1-3 should be reserved for a game that runs, but is incredibly broken. To me, it sounds like a 4/5 is the absolute lowest this game should score.
The game is a 3 thou..It is in the title...
Dude! I didn't even realize this. Holy crap! LOL
A game that promises evolution and something wonderously new and unique, then does not deliver, deserves to be punished by reduction of scores. Spin to sell pre-orders has to have consequences. That's just justice. Consumers need to know they've been duped and the industry needs to get better in this department, not be given a free pass.
Don't know about that. I think downgrades generally get their own set of backlash regardless of whether the game ends up good or bad. I think reviews should bring it up, but still reflect the final product. As an example, The Witcher 3 had a visual downgrade, but still ended up looking great, and the reviews rightfully reflected that. It goes both ways, hype can often lead to inflated scores, so I believe all pre launch hype should mostly go out the window for a good reviewer.
Or "Game Pass"!!!!!
There are consequences for false advertising. Sony has had a couple times where they were called to account. People also went hard on NMS. I don't know if this game would fall into that category, but I'm sure somewhere in the EU it might come up, since they seem to take a pretty hard stance on such things.
I don't disagree, Rainslacker. This should be the norm across all systems. No game should be making claims, then asking for people to lay down money up front, while reviews are released in a small window close to launch, then expect better when people complain and ask for refunds. CD3 is as bad as NMS, as it has been promising innovation for years, and didn't deliver. I get people don't really care because it's on Gamepass, but that's just basic acceptance, instead of questioning why the revolutionary experience that was promised, never appeared. At least a large percentage of exclusives on other consoles are delivering what it says on the tin... MS just doesn't care, and I find that sad for people who are still clinging on. Be a loyal fan by all means, but people need to call out the lies for things to get better.
A four then?
I'd give it a 7 myself, but I can see why folks give it a 6 or even a 5. But I no more see this game at a 3 than I do the site that gave it a 9. Equally absurd, imo.
I agree. The game runs great, plays great, looks good. No bugs. A 3 is for a game that is utterly broken. These reviews are a bunch of BS. It's a 7.5 in my opinion.
The game is fun. The shooting/gunplay is very well done, which makes it addictive. I played it for four hours last night. It's hard to put down. It's a funny game too. The woman (who sounds Indian) has gotten some good laughs out of me so far. Of course, TC is TC.
To each their own, the game felt like a late original Xbox / early Xbox 360 game mechanic wise, and graphically looked like a HD remake of the originals, which would be okay if the game was aiming for 60fps. I agree it's not a 3 / 4 / 5, as those scores are for broken games, but it's definitely not the quality people expect to be playing in 2019. Play the original or even Saints Row 4 or Agents of Mayhem.
I hate how people think those scores can only be for broken games and it’s the reason way so many people think 6 or 7 scores aren’t games worth playing. How many games actually come out nowadays so broken that they would even justify using those numbers? Pretty much none and once people quit only using the scale from 8 to 10 the better off reviews will be. If I play a game that I think is mediocre but still had some fun and it did some cool things to where it feels like I didn’t waste my time playing it than it’s an average game imo so I’m scoring it a 5 not a 7 or 8 and not a 4 or 3. I’ve seen reviews this gen starting to get better at using the whole scale and I hope it continues even more into next gen.
Those scores are for broken games OR have an asking price way above its worth. This is not a $60 game that was falsely hyped for its use of the cloud. The cloud promises themselves lived with this game. It is a sub par 30fps dynamic resolution game.... off of the 12x the power due to the cloud with no friend party option in pvp. Outside of a higher resolution, the game is actually less than its original.
That's what I said. A 3 or 4 is a game that is just completely broken. C3 is solid. It's more like a 7.
And there it is: scores of downvotes because you simply stated that it's fun, and you enjoy it for what it is. No, no fanboyism bias there 🙄
Phil Spencer is a liar. You can't trust them. Alll the smoke and mirrors in regards to the cloud. All this gen. Every E3 showing more BS lies. They are master spinners. PR professors. BS artists. Truth manipulators. If it wasn't for people's "gamer score" even more would have jumped off of this stinky turd. Sony need to release PS5 with 2 different controllers. One with normal thumb sticks and one with inverted thumb sticks. All at launch so people can choose if they prefer the inverted thumbsticks. PS5 is the way to go. It's obvious at this point
True. Its because of this blatant snake oil salesman crap that I will NEVER buy a MS console again.
Excellent, don't buy one. Then we don't have to listen to you moan!
@pinkcrocodile75 LOL but Phil Spencer is big on pushing Sony to do cross-play. you are gonna listen to other console's gamers too like it or not at this rate Spencer is going
@badz149 incorrect.... 3rd party devs are the ones pushing for cross platform play as it benefits them the most.
Completely agree. The Xbox crew are nothing but PR machines. I believe none of their lies and tactics. They don’t care about the quality of their games. Phil’s already talking about having the most powerful console again next generation. When are they going to get it through their heads that stellar games are what matter? Most the studios they purchase are average other than a select few. Nothing they have compare to Sony worldwide studios and never will. Talent doesn’t grow on trees. I fear for Xbox when PS5 launches.
Ever since MS Kinect 1.0 lies, MS has had nothing but crap.